CLMillerSC

@cwr_jd @derek_debus @jayphoward It’s been 20 years since I took them so it’s possible I have forgotten how challenging it really was.

@CLMillerSC @derek_debus @jayphoward After watching 40 students who were not only sharp but exceedingly diligent struggle with this across multiple classes and an entire year of schooling, I’d say you’re underestimating the standards we’re being held to.

On the mult choice, a reasonably bright person can probably do fairly well. Essay? I would be amazed if a non-law school graduate earned even a single point.

@cwr_jd @derek_debus That means you agree with me then? A pretty smart person with 90 days prep and no law school has a chance to pass. I assume the passage rate would be less than 3 years of law school plus bar prep and probably much less. But some would pass.

@CLMillerSC @derek_debus I’d wager less than 50% of people you deem pretty smart could pass the exam with 90 days of full-time prep.

@ProLifeSamuel @derek_debus I assume removing the 3 years of law school would reduce the passage rate by a lot, but the argument is only that a pretty smart person with decent writing skills would have a shot at it with just bar prep. Define smart person as a college degree with honors or 175+ lsat.

@CLMillerSC @derek_debus Most law-school graduates study for the bar exam for about two months straight after going through three years of law school. And many of them don't pass.

@derek_debus @jayphoward I feel like you’re overestimating how hard IRAC would be to learn.

@jayphoward I doubt it. The biggest factor in doing well on the essay portion is not only in knowing the rules but being able to write them in a way bar examiners like. That’s hard to do without years of practice because it’s not natural for most people

@AMandoSch Fine guess I suppose. It’s Chris.

@CLMillerSC And not sure why I called you Clark, is that correct?

Several of my cases are transitioning from hourly to contingency. If you understand what this really means, you understand this is not a bad thing.

@RileeDHarrison Shhh. The pro se folks might be reading this.

The fun thing about being a lawyer is you can in theory file a motion for anything you want. For example, a “Motion to Extend Time to Respond so that I can go get Drunk at Applebees with my Friends”. Would the court take it well? Probably not. But you can sure as hell file it.

@ItsMattsLaw “award winning lawyer (awarded for lawyering)”

calling yourself an “award winning lawyer” is funny because the award could be a 3rd place trophy in a regional BBQ competition and it would still be accurate

@loganbrown799 If you’re looking for the moral failing here, I have a feeling it could be found in the timesheets associated with this.

I feel bad for the S&C juniors here. Every lawyer makes mistakes. AI hallucinations are just a new type. I am glad the mistakes I made didn't trend on twitter. Working in law = intense hours with a lot of pressure for perfection and competing demands. This is an emergency motion so they probably didn't have time for the normal checks. AI seems right and confident. We're all still learning how wrong and off it can be. I'm sure these associates and S&C won't do this again One of my favorite parts re working in legal tech (instead of big law) is that problems/mistakes/bumps in the road are treated like part of the journey and not a moral failing. I hope as tech becomes more intertwined with the law firms, that becomes more common.

@doctor_birkin Guy with the severed leg seems to be in a bad way.

【Here Comes a New Challenger】 Three patients injured in a traffic accident have just arrived at the emergency room. Who would you treat first?

@HockeysRover @jtbourne Yeah. He had to have possession and control. I think they said he had possession but possibly for the instant that mattered he didn’t have control.

@jtbourne Who was offside? Martinook wasnt across the plane of the blue line. It doesnt matter about foot on the ground anymore correct? So does that mean the deemed Staal didnt have possession and was offside?

Awesome game, but genuinely believe offside should have an expiry, like goalie interference. If we can say “goalie had enough time to reset” after some bumps, can’t we say “defence had enough time to reset” 10 seconds after an entry? 15?

@jtbourne I just marveled at how good they performed the 6-5 delayed penalty. Maintained possession, got the goalie off, extra skater on, even made some other player changes. It was a great sequence of play.

@nana_samk @SMB_Attorney I don’t know. But I’d bet their timesheets say they did.

@SMB_Attorney Why don’t these law firms proof read and confirm citations in their submissions? its ridiculous.

POV: You just paid S&C, one of the three most expensive and high-powered law firms in the world, $3000 per hour to submit AI slop to the court on your behalf. No one is safe.

@GeorgeBessenyei @SMB_Attorney I want to see the billing for the bad work in the first place. Good odds there’s hours and hours of time down for research and review. lol.

@SMB_Attorney I wonder if they billed for the correction 😄

@LWjoshb @SMB_Attorney Copy paste the citation into Google even.

@SMB_Attorney It’s shocking to me how a simple prompt of “send me the link to the cases you site” could have potentially avoided this all together

@cdolan92 @SMB_Attorney Yeah. If you don’t know the pretty high likelihood that ChatGPT gives you fake cases, it’s gonna look like a godsend when you are under time pressure. Again, I would love to see the timesheets associated with this work.

@SMB_Attorney Do you think the problem comes from associates not understanding the gravity of loading this into ChatGPT? Or elsewhere?

@haldane_b @Bobbyry5409 But they are only reviewing the offsides because a goal was scored. If a goal wasn’t scored the offsides play wouldnt wipe out the penalty.

@Bobbyry5409 I understand the rule but it still sounds stupid. Everything after the offside wouldn't have happened if it was called correctly in the first place

So we’re offside? So everything after offside shouldn’t count. How do we get a penalty shot? Everything stops after the offside?

@Bobbyry5409 Yeah. I thought so but the official on the broadcast made it sorta make sense. The only reason we care about the offside at all is because a goal was scored. If a goal wasn’t scored, nobody would question the offside beforehand.

@nucks0 Well. The puck crosses the hash marks there so was going a few feet wide. The play from Hughes there is not to go so fast and negate the icing assuming the puck was going wide. Unfortunate curl back into the net.

“Quitt” Hughes gave up on another thing in his life and cost his new team.